Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Elections
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Elections Discuss Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely" at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by Xcali Well let's see.. Considering that most of the recent Polls are all polling LIKELY VOTERS... I ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2012, 06:08 PM
Infidel Dog's Avatar
The New Cool
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,684
Thanks: 734
Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,472 Posts
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcali View Post
Well let's see.. Considering that most of the recent Polls are all polling LIKELY VOTERS...
I think this kind of blows a hole in your theory....


Rasmussen Tracking

9/26 - 9/28
1500 Likely Voters 3.0
48-----46-----Obama +2


FOX News
9/24 - 9/26
1092 Likely Voters 3.0
48-----43-----Obama +5


Bloomberg
9/21 - 9/24
789 Likely Voters 3.5
49-----43-----Obama +6


Politico/GWU/Battleground

9/16 - 9/20
1000 Likely Voters 3.1
50-----47-----Obama +3


National Journal
9/15 - 9/19
1055 Likely Voters 3.0
50-----43-----Obama +7


Associated Press/GfK
9/13 - 9/17
807 Likely Voters 4.3
47-----46-----Obama +1
Those actually aren't that good for your guy, you know. + 3 or less generally falls within the margin of error. They're pretty much a tie. The Bloomberg poll is skewed +6 Democrat among likelies. The Fox poll we've already discussed in other threads as being skewed. The +7 one I've never heard of, but I'd bet money it's heavily skewed.

Hey, answer me something. I checked out the Bloomberg one. Amongst all polled they say +5 would vote Obama if they voted, but among likelies they're +6. Forget about the over-sampling, what that means to me is they're saying likely Obama voters are more likely to make the trip to the voting both. Do you honestly believe that? Empty Chair is having trouble getting people out to his rallies. He couldn't fill the big stadium for his convention. They had to move to the little one. Weather concerns were a nonsense excuse. He has to make silly deals to his email list like send some of your wedding gift money our way, or have one meal less, and send the money to us. There's all kinds of indications the enthusiasm of 2008 is not there in 2012, yet we seem to be asked to believe it is actually higher.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2012, 07:37 PM
Xcali's Avatar
Dog Man Entertainment Grp
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Arkansas
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,191
Thanks: 485
Thanked 1,394 Times in 997 Posts
Send a message via MSN to Xcali
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
Those actually aren't that good for your guy, you know. + 3 or less generally falls within the margin of error. They're pretty much a tie. The Bloomberg poll is skewed +6 Democrat among likelies. The Fox poll we've already discussed in other threads as being skewed. The +7 one I've never heard of, but I'd bet money it's heavily skewed.
So you're saying that all the polls that show Obama in the lead are skewed so some right wing hack unskews them and skews them in the opposite direction to show Willard leading and we're just supposed to believe it?..

The polls are not skewed , Willard is just losing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
Hey, answer me something. I checked out the Bloomberg one. Amongst all polled they say +5 would vote Obama if they voted, but among likelies they're +6. Forget about the over-sampling, what that means to me is they're saying likely Obama voters are more likely to make the trip to the voting both. Do you honestly believe that? Empty Chair is having trouble getting people out to his rallies. He couldn't fill the big stadium for his convention. They had to move to the little one. Weather concerns were a nonsense excuse. He has to make silly deals to his email list like send some of your wedding gift money our way, or have one meal less, and send the money to us. There's all kinds of indications the enthusiasm of 2008 is not there in 2012, yet we seem to be asked to believe it is actually higher.
I think it's more like the Right Wing was counting on low turn out and low enthusiasm this election because they know it's the only way republicans can win in the current political climate. Traditionally there is a much lower turn out during a mid term, so in 2010 the Tea Party had a field day and swept into the House , and now they believe that Democrats are just disappointed enough and lazy enough that they will sit at home rather than get out for Obama...

I hate to break the news but you and the right wing are wrong. From where I sit the enthusiasm is just as strong if not higher than it was in 2008. I believe that the right wing plan of passing strict voter ID laws, cutting off early voting times, and all the things they have done to suppress the Democratic Vote will backfire on them. See I call it the " Human Nature" factor, that I believe the Republican party failed to realize. It's just like when you tell a teenager not to do something, it only makes them want to do it more. Passing new Voter Laws to limit people from voting is basically telling people who are used to going out and voting that they can't vote. Telling a few million Democrats they have to jump through hoops to cast their vote only served to incite those people to get out and vote.

I have a friend in Iowa who has already cast his vote, and he tells me that enthusiasm on the first day of early voting there was higher than it was in 2008. Even better was that he said it was mostly Democrats who were out in droves getting in their votes while they had time.

The Democrats also have two things going for them that I consider very advantageous.
1: Obama has been building his ground game in most of the swing states since 2008... so he has twice the ground game Willard has pieced together. Case in point again, Iowa. Willard has something like 16 field offices in Iowa... Not bad for a normal campaign... However, Obama has like 96 field offices. Big advantage when it comes to getting out the vote.

2: We have a Former President who has a very high approval rating and who is highly popular all over the country actively campaigning for the President and his policies. Bill Clinton is a major advantage, especially considering that the Former Republican President wasn't even invited to the Republican Convention and doesn't seem to be welcome anywhere near the Romney campaign...

So no.. I don't really believe the Media when they claim there is an enthusiasm problem with Democrats. There's not very many in my area but the Democrats I do know are more than excited to Vote against Willard , just as excited as you are to vote against Obama.
__________________
“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
― Thomas Jefferson


“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2012, 07:55 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,881
Thanks: 6,488
Thanked 10,051 Times in 5,820 Posts
Post Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
Those actually aren't that good for your guy, you know. + 3 or less generally falls within the margin of error. They're pretty much a tie. The Bloomberg poll is skewed +6 Democrat among likelies. The Fox poll we've already discussed in other threads as being skewed. The +7 one I've never heard of, but I'd bet money it's heavily skewed.
You guys keep avoiding the question...
HOW are these polls supposedly being skewed?
The reality is that you guys don't want to admit that the Repubs actions are resulting in FEWER people who want to say "I am with Repubs". That's not the same thing as the polls being "skewed"...

And furthermore, I don't think you really want to rest your head on the "margin of error" response.
+3, assuming a +/- 3% margin of error, results in the overall being between 0% (which would be a tie at the extreme end) to Romney losing by 6 points (at the other side of the extreme end).

Plus, considering that the polls repeatedly show the same thing, that reduces the margin of error.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog
Hey, answer me something. I checked out the Bloomberg one. Amongst all polled they say +5 would vote Obama if they voted, but among likelies they're +6. Forget about the over-sampling, what that means to me is they're saying likely Obama voters are more likely to make the trip to the voting both. Do you honestly believe that? Empty Chair is having trouble getting people out to his rallies. He couldn't fill the big stadium for his convention. They had to move to the little one. Weather concerns were a nonsense excuse. He has to make silly deals to his email list like send some of your wedding gift money our way, or have one meal less, and send the money to us. There's all kinds of indications the enthusiasm of 2008 is not there in 2012, yet we seem to be asked to believe it is actually higher.
Not showing up at a rally is not the same thing as not showing up at the big event of election day.
If Obama came to my area to speak, I probably would not go to see him.
But I will be voting for him in November...

Why don't you take a look at another indicator...

Quote:
Now thanks to economic infographic site Demonocracy.info and graphic artist Oto Godfrey, we can actually see how this year's campaign cash literally stacks up. As you can see, it appears President Obama is currently winning the cash race, with around $307 million, compared to candidates Mitt Romney with $157 million, and Ron Paul with $41 million.
Obama And Romney's Campaign Donations Visualized [INFOGRAPHIC]

And if you look at INDIVIDUAL contributions, Obama is beating the crap out of Romney...
Presidential Campaign Finance
Obama: $200 and under: $271,327,755
Romney: $200 and under: $58,456,968
__________________
"The issue is not the size of government. The real issue is who the government is working for."
- Robert Reich
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:14 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,074
Thanks: 4,063
Thanked 2,110 Times in 1,421 Posts
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WallyWager View Post
You mean the days before every pollster in the country got together and formed a conspiratorial cabal, purposed to willfully manipulate all of their polls to give the illusion that Obama is winning the election...
It is really not a question of whether there is some gigantic "conspirc[cy]" to "willfully manipulate all of their polls."

Rather, it is a question of methodology.

If many polling organizations begin with the baseline assumption that the 2012 electorate is likely to resemble, rather closely, the 2008 electorate, one of their most fundamental assumptions is likely to be hugely flawed.

I seriously doubt that the percentage of the electorate that is black, Latino, or young (say, 18-29 years of age)--all Democratic client groups--is likely to be anywhere close to what it was four years ago.

The electorate will probably not be quite so congenial to Republican candidates as the midterm electorate was in 2010, either.

But I am guessing that it will look a bit more like the 2010 electorate than it will look like the 2008 electorate...
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:27 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,291
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,049 Times in 5,525 Posts
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Can you explain HOW this “skewing” is supposedly occurring?

The truthful answer is “No. You can’t.”
The truthful answer is you guys don’t like the results, so you CLAIM
“skewed”. You have absolutely no evidence of anything actually
skewed.
You think the number of Repubs should be higher?
I ask you HOW that was supposedly achieved?
(And also recognize that your desire for more Repubs is simply wishful thinking)



Here’s a funny question for you.
HOW do you figure out what “the political breakdown of a polled area” is?
Do you possibly ASK the people? Like they do in these polls?
Could THAT be how you accomplish that???

An “intelligent person” would NOT ASSUME the political breakdown of a
polled area.
Cause that’s where you and the right keep trying to claim a problem
when there isn’t any.
The poll ASKS what the political breakdown is.

And the fact that it ASKS, and doesn’t get the results YOU WANT is not
the same thing as the poll being flawed.



An intelligent person would be able to explain HOW the polling
method is flawed
.
But the truth is that these organizations are using the same
polling methods
that they have used in the past.
You guys want to cry “foul”, but at the end of the day that is SOLELY
because you guys think the outcome should be different.

The reality is Repubs are losing people. More people are wanting to
say they are something other than Republican.
More people are balking at associating themselves with Republicans.
If the polling sample breaks out 40/60 Dem/Rep and the area being polled is 60/40 Dem/Rep, then the poll results are not going to be accurate. How hard is that to comprehend?? This has been the biggest flaw in the polling process - skewing the samples. But I'm giving you facts and truth again, so I know that I just confused you. Sorry, I hope you weren't doing anything important....
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:55 PM
Infidel Dog's Avatar
The New Cool
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,684
Thanks: 734
Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,472 Posts
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You guys keep avoiding the question...
HOW are these polls supposedly being skewed?
The reality is that you guys don't want to admit that the Repubs actions are resulting in FEWER people who want to say "I am with Repubs". That's not the same thing as the polls being "skewed"...
You know what?

It turns out you're right.

Quote:
One of the most amazing — and significant — statistics of this election season has gone almost completely unnoticed:

Only 9% of sampled households gave an answer to pollsters in 2012:


It has become increasingly difficult to contact potential respondents and to persuade them to participate. The percentage of households in a sample that are successfully interviewed – the response rate – has fallen dramatically. At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was 36% in 1997 and is just 9% today.

The general decline in response rates is evident across nearly all types of surveys, in the United States and abroad. At the same time, greater effort and expense are required to achieve even the diminished response rates of today. These challenges have led many to question whether surveys are still providing accurate and unbiased information.
The PJ Tatler WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters

What these seemingly skewed polls actually prove is Republicans are less likely to do polls. Call a number of phones and +7 Democrat will consent to do the poll.

This does not surprise me. What did challenge credibility was when we were being told more Democrats were going to vote this election than in 2008. That one just did not make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:12 PM
WallyWager's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Michigan
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,475
Thanks: 1,029
Thanked 3,142 Times in 1,965 Posts
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Poll Averages Have No History of Consistent Partisan Bias
By NATE SILVER

Presidential elections are high-stakes affairs. So perhaps it is no surprise that when supporters of one candidate do not like the message they are hearing from the polls they tend to blame the messenger.

In 2004, Democratic Web sites were convinced that the polls were biased toward George W. Bush, asserting that they showed an implausible gain in the number of voters identifying as Republicans. But in fact, the polls were very near the actual result. Mr. Bush defeated John Kerry by 2.5 percentage points, close to (in fact just slightly better than) the 1- or 2-point lead that he had on average in the final polls. Exit polls that year found an equal number of voters describing themselves as Democrats and Republicans, also close to what the polls had predicted.

Since President Obama gained ground in the polls after the Democrats’ convention, it has been the Republicans’ turn to make the same accusations. Some have said that the polls are “oversampling” Democrats and producing results that are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor. One Web site, unskewedpolls.com, contends that even Fox News is part of the racket in what it says is a “trend of skewed polls that oversample Democratic voters to produce results favorable for the president.”

The criticisms are largely unsound, especially when couched in terms like “oversampling,” which implies that pollsters are deliberately rigging their samples....


Poll Averages Have No History of Consistent Partisan Bias - NYTimes.com
Redd got it right about 1980, but elections preceding and succeeding (Save maybe 1996) have seen no major polling bias in relation to the actual results.
__________________
"Bush tortured people, Obama just kills them."
---Noam Chomsky
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WallyWager For This Useful Post:
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:39 PM
Infidel Dog's Avatar
The New Cool
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,684
Thanks: 734
Thanked 2,104 Times in 1,472 Posts
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Here's one reason I have trouble believing the Democrat turnout on election day is going to be as amazingly high as the polls suggest this election day...

Take Ohio for example. In Ohio the Washington Post poll over-sampled Democrats by 7.

Now look at this...


But what's happening at Obama rallies is they have to claim they're intentionally keeping turnout low this year.

Obama campaign spokeswoman claims low crowd turnout at rallies is ?by design? The Greenroom

And if you believe the rally turnout is low, because Dems want it that way, well...

Somebody has to start spreading the meme telling Republicans to start agreeing to do the poll when they sit down to dinner after hard day's work, and get the phone call.

Last edited by Infidel Dog; 10-01-2012 at 02:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2012, 03:24 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,881
Thanks: 6,488
Thanked 10,051 Times in 5,820 Posts
Default Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
If the polling sample breaks out 40/60 Dem/Rep and the area being polled is 60/40 Dem/Rep, then the poll results are not going to be accurate. How hard is that to comprehend??
If you could comprehend what I am saying, you would see that I understand WHY you think it is wrong.
The question is HOW the polling process is being skewed?

For example, do the pollsters have phone numbers of Democrats which they favor?
Are Republicans getting confused on the questions and saying "Obama / Democrat" when they actually mean Romney / Republican?

WHAT PROCESS is being implemented in the STANDARD polling procedure that is supposedly "skewing" the results?

I mean, it's easy for some guy picking up a rifle to claim "the gun shoots to the left" because he doesn't get the results he wants. And that is EXACTLY what you're doing.
But the REAL question is can you demonstrate the gun is flawed by its design / physical construct, or can you recognize the person making the claim is just making excuses?


Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
This has been the biggest flaw in the polling process - skewing the samples. But I'm giving you facts and truth again, so I know that I just confused you. Sorry, I hope you weren't doing anything important....
You haven't given me any facts, as usual.
In fact, I can't help but notice that you aren't throwing out your b.s. Wisconsin Walker vote claims, probably because I have corrected you one too many times on your stupid claims on that one.

You confuse CLAIMS with FACTS.
You CLAIMING that we should have more Republicans in the polls is not the same thing as PROVING that there are actually more Republicans out there.
__________________
"The issue is not the size of government. The real issue is who the government is working for."
- Robert Reich

Last edited by foundit66; 10-01-2012 at 03:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 10-01-2012, 03:29 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,881
Thanks: 6,488
Thanked 10,051 Times in 5,820 Posts
Post Re: Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: "Massive Dem Skew" is "Probably Unlikely"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
You know what?
It turns out you're right.
The PJ Tatler WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters
What these seemingly skewed polls actually prove is Republicans are less likely to do polls. Call a number of phones and +7 Democrat will consent to do the poll.
ROFLMAO!
You guys keep making up new excuses when you get a glimmer of something to found a new HYPOTHESIS on...

Based on this claim, we should be able to go back to previuos polls / elections and find the same consistent bias, right?
But you cannot do that, can you...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog
Here's one reason I have trouble believing the Democrat turnout on election day is going to be as amazingly high as the polls suggest this election day...
Take Ohio for example. In Ohio the Washington Post poll over-sampled Democrats by 7.
Now look at this...

But what's happening at Obama rallies is they have to claim they're intentionally keeping turnout low this year.
Obama campaign spokeswoman claims low crowd turnout at rallies is ?by design? The Greenroom
And if you believe the rally turnout is low, because Dems want it that way, well...
Somebody has to start spreading the meme telling Republicans to start agreeing to do the poll when they sit down to dinner after hard day's work, and get the phone call.
Why don't you take a look at another indicator...

Quote:
Now thanks to economic infographic site Demonocracy.info and graphic artist Oto Godfrey, we can actually see how this year's campaign cash literally stacks up. As you can see, it appears President Obama is currently winning the cash race, with around $307 million, compared to candidates Mitt Romney with $157 million, and Ron Paul with $41 million.
Obama And Romney's Campaign Donations Visualized [INFOGRAPHIC]

And if you look at INDIVIDUAL contributions, Obama is beating the crap out of Romney...
Presidential Campaign Finance
Obama: $200 and under: $271,327,755
Romney: $200 and under: $58,456,968
__________________
"The issue is not the size of government. The real issue is who the government is working for."
- Robert Reich
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
admits, massive dem skew, pollster, probably unlikely, quinnipiac

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0